Why do people keep calling Tyson's opponents "bums and Holmes leftovers"

Let's not pretend that Tyson didn't also draw the color line.

 

Tyson was a great fighter. Period. In his prime, he was perhaps the most ferocious in heavyweight history (though that could be argued for Dempsey, Liston...even Frazier up to FOTC). He completely devastated the division...though it could be argued Holmes did the same, he just did it in a different way.

I don't feel Tyson nor Holmes avoided anybody important and fought the best of their day. During their respective peaks they couldn't be beat...

inevitably, Holmes finally did get beat a few years past his prime, and Mike...well, I'm guessing Mike kind of beat himself (I could be wrong). Larry got trounced at the age of 38 by a young and hot Mike, while Mike got trounced at age 38 by a guy older than him, Lennox Lewis.

 

Ummm. What ?

 

Hi mate I completely agree. Larry post Cooney faced fighters who were in my opinion better than the guys he faced before he fought Cooney.

I watched the Witherspoon, Bonecrusher & Bey fights fights on Aussie network tv and they were all excellent performances from Larry. I loved watching Holmes fight as I have always been a sucker for a great boxer with a great jab. Larry was mean, tough as nails, smart and just an all round great fighter. Despite my bias to the Easton Assassin over Mike Tyson I just try n be fair and not a fan when evaluating fighters and their title reigns. It wasn't Holmes fault that apart from Norton and Shavers that his defences in the first part of his reign were against a fairly average lot. It was only post Cooney that Larry started to be more selective in his choice of opponent and in reality he was smart to do so.

Cheers.

 

Holmes did not defend against Norton. He won the title against Norton.

 

Breakdown Tyson and Holmes:
1. Norton and Spinks were about the same
2. Tucker>Cooney
3. Ruddock x2>Shaversrx2 without hindsight bias due to Ruddock's career wash-up
4. Witherspoon>Biggs, but it wasn't perceived that way when the fights happened
5. Old Holmes>Mercer
6. Each beat Williams, Berbick, Marvis and Bonecrusher. Tyson performed better.
7. Thomas>Weaver
8. Brunox2>Leon and Snipes
9. Tubbs>Bey
10. Golota>Ocasio

The gist of it is that I think Tyson had a better career if the terrible lows aren't weighed too heavily.

 

Forgive an old man for making an error. Hope that made you feel better mate.

 

Really interesting post, but Ken Norton was a FAR greater heavyweight than Michael Spinks ever dreamed of being imo. Norton beat a 31-year old Ali, a prime Jimmy Young, and gave an amped/prime Larry Holmes the fight of his life.

Tyson performed better against Berbick only because Berbick was six years older since he fought Holmes (who dominated him). And Bruno never accomplished anything as great as Snipes knocking down a still-prime Larry Holmes (to the point of making him crash into a turnbuckle upon arising). Not even close.

All my opinion, and thanks for being thought-provoking, @NoNeck

 

Not true:
1. Tyson would've been a very large favorite over Norton because Norton was chinless; Tyson was not a large favorite over Spinks. Spinks' run of beating Holmes twice and Cooney was equal or better than whatever Norton was doing in the late 70s. Norton would go on to lose hy ko1 less than a year after fighting Holmes.

It is hindsight bias to say Norton was a better opponent than Spinks because Tyson demolished Spinks. But Tyson would've done the same thing to Norton.

2. Tyson fought Berbick when he was a champion. Berbick had just beaten Thomas, who was pfp rated and more highly regarded than anyone Holmes fought during his entire reign, and David Bey. Berbick was at his peak.

3. Bruno and Snipes were at a similar level. Beating Bruno twice, once for a title, is better than beating Snipes and Leon. If you don't see the flaw in rating Snipes because he landed a bomb on Holmes idk what to tell you.

 

I respectfully agree to disagree.

 

It is notable though. There's a certain heavyweight champion today who seems to be willing to fight anyone for a title but has still never beaten a top ten contender or made a title defense. There was a guy who won the heavyweight title in the 90s and never fought a top ten contender again.

 

You can't disagree with facts.

 

In respect to the overall knowledge-factor and well-written posts that you typically present, I bow out of the argument. I don't consider what facts you are presenting to be entirely salient in reinforcing your assertions.

There are context factors that are missing in your arguments. However, I would rather give you respect and concede gracefully. You have a lot of good points throughout the history of your posting (including the above) and I have admired many of your thoughts on various topics here at b24.

Facts often have context equivocating them. I simply choose to let this rest, and voice my respect for you.